Jump to content

A week with the M240 and back to film


sblitz

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was in a workshop this past week, and had to use a pure digital workflow to meet the quick turnaround times. Rented a M240 for the week and used my Q.

 

First off, I think the Q is better except that there isn't the ability to change lenses. If I were going to invest in a Leica digital, the SL would be it barring whatever the new M looks like

 

The point of this post, however, is to say that I am so happy to be back to film. Yes, speed of digital has its huge advantages but I just do better with film. The whole mind set is better and the product is much more to my liking. Yes the M files are very malleable but why work that hard to get a look I can get immediately from film?

 

No film digital debate, just for me after a week of being intensely in the digital space again it feels better to be back using film. Feels like coming home. Postings to come in the film section.

 

BTW I know no one really cares how I feel, I judged a place to write how I feel and for that I am grateful for this forum

 

That's all, thanks

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I, and probably others, do care how you feel. Your elucidation helps reinforce yearnings deep inside us all I suspect. I do love film and all the processes associated with it. However, I frequently find myself using digital for purely practical reasons. Next week I travel to Spain, Portugal and Morocco. I will mainly shoot digital but still trying to find a way to fit one film body (M7) and a stack of film in my very compact luggage.

 

Either way, I will struggle carrying the extra load, or struggle with the memory of filmic shots missed.

 

Memories of evenings spent in the darkroom with the smell of chemicals, magic images apearing in pools of liquid before my eyes and the radio serenading me and the isolation of an undisturbed environment are soooo evocative. What's not to love?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital has the convenient and quick side but the film remains unbeatable especiallly if you love color.
Why spend time on photo software to correct , as said Steve, when you can get better with a film ?


Erl , during my last med. humanitarian mission in September this year, three quarters of my photos

were done with my M7 and MP.No problem when passing airport security gate. Please look at "I like film"

thread. :)

Best

Experience of someone who did 6 years of digital M.

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital has the convenient and quick side but the film remains unbeatable especiallly if you love color.

Why spend time on photo software to correct , as said Steve, when you can get better with a film ?

Erl , during my last med. humanitarian mission in September this year, three quarters of my photos

were done with my M7 and MP.No problem when passing airport security gate. Please look at "I like film"

thread. :)

Best

Experience of someone who did 6 years of digital M.

 

If you are interesting , here a comparison posted in "I like film" thread of

digital image versus film , for fog

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3121207

You said like impressionist painters ?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3121222

Fog landscape in film :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3121194

You know now why I prefer film.... and film is unbeatable !

Best

Henry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could select images that show the opposite; it's about the scene, the lighting, having a good eye, skill, technique, and lots more.  In fact, let's....

 

I don't know this photographer, but he photographs fog using film and digital.  If you look at the bottom two pics, "Horse in Field Around Sunrise, North of Calgary" and "Boardwalk, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, 1984", the former looks grainy (almost pointillist) and is digital, while latter looks smooth and clean and is Tri-X....   http://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/fog_photography.html  They likely both look better in person.

 

It's fine to have your own tastes, preferences, techniques, etc, but these gross generalizations, especially using the word 'impossible', are silly.  

 

I shot film for 40 years, and did my own processing, printing, matting and framing.  Now I do the same with the M240.  So what?  The prints are happily displayed together....nobody is the wiser or cares about the medium if the picture is worthy and the print quality does it justice.

 

Whatever floats your boat....

 

Jeff

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to use both digital and film. Film gives me an intangible pleasure, its constraints making success all the more valued. Digital provides access to shots that would be, if not impossible, very difficult to achieve with film. I am very pleased that such options are available to me.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Soft" line of face, "pores" of skin well reproduced in film (crop)

vs "cutting" lines and edges (too sharp not natural) and "smoothing" square pixels

not been able to reproduce "hole" of skin pores

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.summilux.net%2Fforums%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D10%26t%3D51356&edit-text=

Original link for image in full size

http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51356

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Soft" line of face, "pores" of skin well reproduced in film (crop)

vs "cutting" lines and edges (too sharp not natural) and "smoothing" square pixels

 

An electrical charge on a photosite within a sensor generates a signal which is called a pixel, it has no shape, it is a charge, a pixel is only given size and shape by the device you use to display or print it which is defined by that device.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry, I have said this before, but can't you just enjoy shooting film?

 

There is no need to continue to denigrate digital in order to do that, all it does is detract from the enjoyment of these discussions, which really ought to be about enjoying the images members create in film and to share in their ideas and techniques. There shouldn't be a need for any negativity.

Edited by Bill Livingston
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two eyes, two sides to my brain and often two (or more) opinions.

On that basis alone I can happily accommodate both film and digital, which ever proves the more suitable in any given situation, which DOES vary.

Neither is BETTER than the other, just more suitable in appropriate circumstances.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two eyes, two sides to my brain and often two (or more) opinions.

On that basis alone I can happily accommodate both film and digital, which ever proves the more suitable in any given situation, which DOES vary.

Neither is BETTER than the other, just more suitable in appropriate circumstances.

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread seems to straying a bit, not unusual for this or any forum. point is not whether digital or film is better but, while we are all capable of shooting both and shooting both well, some of us (me) are inclined to enjoy shooting film than digital. it is more than the output, it is the whole process. i fully understand this is between my ears rather than rational thought, and it is nice getting back to my own comfort zone -- so to speak.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to admit I'm a film snob and don't have a problem with Doc's credo on film vs digital. I started out schooled in film then gave up on it with my purchase of the M8.2. From there it was the Monochrom v.1. Next th m-p 240. All the digital purchases personally helped diminish everything from shooting habits to stale results. All that good stuff embedded in a negative became more and more apparent to me. There's something to say about the way aa film M handles or the creamy results of fp4 through a 500cm.

 

Frank

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is different.  

 

For me, shooting habits and print results have little to do with the gear (since all of it....film and digital....has been more than capable) and mostly to do with me.  After 4 decades with film and darkroom, that shooting and print workflow discipline is deeply ingrained.  A beautiful print of a worthy image remains the goal, inspired by wonderful subject matter.

 

After 9 years with digital, I'm shooting roughly the same amount of pictures per year as I did with film. There's a continuing learning curve and desire to improve.  

 

Just as in my darkroom days (4 darkrooms in 4 houses over the years), print results have had more to do with the back end of the workflow than my camera/lens.... now including printers, papers, profiles, inks, editing software, display enhancements, etc, etc....and more importantly, my own improved processes and techniques.  

 

Over that same time, collecting vintage prints and books, attending countless exhibits, and meeting with curators, dealers and others to see some marvelous work (including painting and other art forms), has kept me both inspired and grounded as to what's possible.

 

Some people do a lot with minimal gear, and others struggle to get decent results using the best.  And some don't have the eye to know the difference.  As it always was....film or digital.

 

The best tools are between the ears.

 

Jeff

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...